RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02539
            INDEX CODE:  131.01

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: YES

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated to active reserve status for a period of not  less
than one and not greater than seven years so  the  promotion  board
action is not wasted.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was promoted in this time of war to meet the needs of the US Air
Force Reserve for experienced senior level officers.  The Assistant
Secretary for  Manpower  and  Reserve  Affairs’(SAF/MR)  denial  of
continuation in the Air Force Reserve constituted an  injustice  to
the FY04 Promotion Board, the  USAFR,  and  him  as  his  promotion
attested to his ability, performance and future  potential  in  the
Air Force Reserve.  The Assistant  Secretary  erred  grievously  in
failing to recognize this.

In support of  his  appeal,  applicant  submitted  a  copy  of  his
Promotion Recommendation Form for the V0604A promotion  board;  his
Reserve Promotion order to Colonel, effective 1 Mar 04; a  copy  of
an Officer Performance Report, closing 11 Apr 03 and an  Individual
Information Report, dated 24 Nov 03; letters of congratulation, and
a copy of a USAFR Extension  of  Colonels  on  the  Reserve  Active
Status List (RASL) package and the denial letter from SAF/MR, dated
28 May 04.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, a Reserve Officer, is currently retired awaiting pay
at age 60.  He was reassigned  to  the  Retired  Reserve  effective
1 June 2004.

Based  on  available  evidence,  applicant  was   commissioned   on
10 May 1974.  His mandatory separation date (MSD)  was  established
as 9 June  2002,  based  on  28  years  and  30  days  of  service.
Applicant met and was selected for continuation in  July  2001;  he
accepted continuation and his MSD was adjusted to 31 May 2004.   He
was promoted to the grade of colonel, with a promotion service date
and date of rank of 1 Mar 04, as a Supply officer.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ ARPC/DPP  reviewed  this  application  and  recommended  denial.
Applicant was promoted to colonel effective 1 March 2004.  Officers
promoted under the Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA)
must serve satisfactory in grade  for  three  years,  in  order  to
retire in that grade.  Time in grade requirement is reduced to  six
months if the officer is involuntarily separated from active status
due to  age  or  years  of  service.   Applicant  falls  under  the
involuntarily separation policy due to his MSD; therefore, he  only
needed six months of satisfactory service to retire in the grade of
colonel.  Since applicant’s MSD was 31 May 2004, he  did  not  meet
the six months requirement.

A request was prepared from Chief of the Air Force Reserve  (AF/RE)
to SAF/MR for an extension to the MSD, pending a  long-term  policy
change to continuation.  On 26 May 2004, SAF/MR denied the request.
 Applicant was properly transferred to the Retired  Reserve  on  31
May 2004.  There are no other provisions in the law to  extend  the
applicant’s MSD; therefore, his retirement should stand.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 24 Sep 04 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient  relevant   evidence   has   been   presented   to
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After a  thorough
review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are
not  persuaded  that  his  uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and  by
themselves, are sufficiently persuasive to override  the  rationale
provided by the Air Force.  The applicant argues  he  was  promoted
during this time of war to meet the needs of the Air Force  Reserve
for experienced colonels and the denial of his exception to  policy
waiver to be extended beyond his mandatory  separation  date  (MSD)
creates an injustice for the FY04 Colonel promotion board.  He  was
considered and selected for continuation in June  01;  he  accepted
continuation and his MSD was adjusted to 31 May 04  (30  years  and
30 days).  After careful review of the evidence provided, we  found
evidence the applicant’s established MSD was based on the governing
instruction and policy in  effect  at  the  time,  using  the  same
policies governing others who were similarly situated.   Therefore,
we agree with the opinion  and  recommendation  of  the  Air  Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale  expressed
as the basis for our decision that  the  applicant  has  failed  to
sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or injustice.
 Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the  contrary,
we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought
in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and  it  has  not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issues  involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that  the
application was denied without a personal appearance; and that  the
application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of  newly
discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2004-02539 in Executive Session on 7 December  2004,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Aug 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ ARPC/DPP, dated 21 Sep 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Sep 04.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair